RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients in inpatient psychiatry settings are uniquely vulnerable to harm. As sources of harm, research and policy efforts have specifically focused on minimizing and eliminating restraint and seclusion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting (IPFQR) program attempts to systematically measure and reduce restraint and seclusion. We evaluated facilities' response to the IPFQR program and differences by ownership, hypothesizing that facilities reporting these measures for the first time will show a greater reduction and that ownership will moderate this effect. METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences design and exploiting variation among facilities that previously reported on these measures to The Joint Commission, we examined the effect of the IPFQR public reporting program on the use and duration of restraint and seclusion from the end of 2012 through 2017. RESULTS: There were a total of 9705 observations of facilities among 1841 unique facilities. Results suggest the IPFQR program reduced duration of restraint by 48.96% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 16.69%-68.73%] and seclusion by 53.54% (95% CI, 19.71%-73.12%). There was no change in odds of zero restraint and, among for-profits only, a decrease of 36.89% (95% CI, 9.32%-56.07%) in the odds of zero seclusion. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of the effect of the IPFQR program on restraint and seclusion, suggesting the program was successful in reducing their use. We did not find support for ownership moderating this effect. Additional research is needed to understand mechanisms of response and the impact of the program on nontargeted aspects of quality.
Assuntos
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./normas , Transtornos Mentais , Isolamento de Pacientes/estatística & dados numéricos , Unidade Hospitalar de Psiquiatria/estatística & dados numéricos , Restrição Física/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Propriedade , Registros Públicos de Dados de Cuidados de Saúde , Fatores de Tempo , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was removed from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient-Only (IPO) list starting January 1, 2018. Many hospitals responded by instructing surgeons to schedule all TKAs as outpatient procedures, and some local Medicare Advantage contractors began to expect outpatient status for all or most TKA cases. This activity and ensuing confusion has caused considerable unintended disruption for surgeons, hospitals, and patients. The purpose of this study was to gauge the impact on providers and patients. METHODS: Active members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons were sent a 9-question survey asking if the surgeon's hospital was treating all patients undergoing TKA as outpatients and if Medicare Advantage administrators and commercial payers were treating all or most the same. Questions also inquired about the impact on surgeon practices and their patients. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty members (26%) responded; of which, 59.5% reported that their hospitals have instructed them that all Medicare TKAs should be scheduled as outpatient procedures; 40.5% have been asked to use proscribed documentation to justify that change; 30.4% reported that their patients have incurred added personal cost secondary to their surgical procedure being billed as an outpatient procedure; and 76.1% report that this issue has become an administrative burden. CONCLUSION: The CMS clearly stated its expectation in the 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule that the great majority of Medicare fee-for-service TKA patients would continue to be treated as inpatients. Nonetheless, many hospitals have decided to schedule all TKA cases as outpatients due to the 2-midnight rule despite a moratorium on recovery audits. It is the position of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons that the CMS needs to provide more specific expectations concerning the needed language justifying admission or exempt TKA from the 2-midnight rule to mitigate the unintended confusion demonstrated by hospitals and some payers that has resulted from the removal of TKA from the Inpatient-Only list.
Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Ambulatórios , Artroplastia do Joelho , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./normas , Cirurgiões Ortopédicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Planos de Pagamento por Serviço Prestado , Hospitais , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Medicaid , Medicare , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Since the 2004 approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration of carotid artery stenting (CAS), there have been two seminal publications about CAS reimbursement (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines; 2008) and clinical outcomes (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial [CREST]; 2010). We explored the association between these publications and national trends in CAS use among high-risk symptomatic patients. METHODS: The most recent congruent data sets of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) were queried for patients undergoing carotid revascularization. The sample was limited to include only patients who were defined as "high-risk" if they had a Charlson Comorbidity Score of ≥3.0. Subgroup analyses were performed of high-risk patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Utilization proportions of CAS were calculated quarterly from 2005 to 2011 for NIS. Three time intervals related to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines and CREST publication were selected: 2005 to 2008, 2008 to 2010, and after 2010. Logistic regression with piecewise linear trend for time was used to estimate different trends in CAS use for the overall high-risk sample and for neurologically asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare odds of postoperative mortality and stroke between these two procedures at different time intervals independent of confounding variables. RESULTS: During the study period, 20,079 carotid endarterectomies (CEAs) and 3447 CAS procedures were performed in high-risk patients in the NIS database. CAS utilization constituted 20.5% of carotid revascularization procedures among high-risk symptomatic patients, with a significant increase from 18.6% to 24.4% during the study period (P < .001). There was an initial increase during 2005 to 2008 in the rate of CAS compared with CEA, CAS utilization significantly decreased during 2008 to 2010 by a 3.3% decline in the odds ratio (OR) of CAS per quarter (OR, 0.967; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.943-0.993; P = .002), and after CREST (after 2010), CAS utilization continued to increase significantly from the prepublication to the postpublication time interval. The odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.17-5.62; P = .019) and postoperative in-hospital stroke (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.09-3.68; P = .024) were independently and significantly higher for CAS patients in the overall sample. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CAS for carotid revascularization in a high-risk cohort of patients has significantly increased from 2005 to 2011. Compared with CEA, CAS independently increased the odds of perioperative in-hospital stroke in all high-risk patients and of in-hospital mortality in symptomatic high-risk patients.